As of late, Wisconsin Republicans have been quite fond of attempting to undermine and overturn the state's existing gun laws. In many cases, conservative leadership has eagerly echoed the nationwide claims of the NRA, placing firearms on equal footing as democracy and free speech in defining what it means to truly be American.
In some cases, the right has acted with sincerity, citing statistics to back specific positions and making a decent case for lightened restrictions. Far too often, however, they have revealed a nihilistic goal, pushing for the abandonment of as much legal control as possible in order to open the door for an idyllic wild west scenario in which nobody acts up for fear that they might get shot.
That appears to be precisely the case with the Republicans' latest effort, which also enjoys a fair amount of support among Democrats at the moment. Assembly Bill 581, which would essentially strip state and local government of any power to restrict gun use and gun purchases during an emergency, is the latest incarnation of a broader school of thought: guns for everyone.
In addition, the bill itself is too categorical, outlawing controls on the possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition during an emergency."" The idea that armed citizens should join police and guardsmen in sorting out a disaster is foolish; and the belief that the key to preventing unnecessary suffering is to let people do whatever they want with their guns is a bad one as well.
So far, proponents of the legislation have couched the issue in unrealistic terms. For example, the peaceful gun owner who has his door kicked down and his rifles confiscated by the government has become the imagined beneficiary. To be sure, an emergency should not mean giving the green light to oppressive tactics.
Furthermore, why should we also do away with restrictions on gun and ammunition sales? Why should the ""display"" of firearms no longer be governed? As usual, the legislation smacks of a backdoor effort to get rid of gun control in any form. If the first step is in emergencies, so be it. It would just be nice if those behind the bill were open about their broader intentions.
For their part, critics have labeled the proposal as too broad, specifically citing the need in some emergencies for police to be the only ones with guns and for the rest of us to follow orders. To the anti-government crowd, the concept is repulsive. Hopefully, Governor Doyle will be more inclined to nitpick this bill if he has a say in the matter.
